Edwards vs Obama: Issue - Environment

[jsamuel]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/20/0925/95800

This was done by a simple search of the respective candidates' websites. I have recently become an Edwards supporter (but am not affiliated with anyone), so read this diary with that in mind. This is intended to start a discussion on the issues that are really important to our country and the world. Please keep discussion to the issues, but of course you can talk about whatever you like.

One small difference is that John Edwards page mentions "Global Warming" and lists many ways to help the environment, not just fuel efficiency, hybrids, biofuels, and coal. Obama's page does NOT mention "Global Warming", but instead says "Global Climate Change" - a Republican frame (thanks to Frank Luntz) - and only spends 2 short paragraphs on it.

"Global Warming" implies something bad is happening where "Global Climate Change" is used by Republicans to imply that change is good or at least natural (not caused by humans).

You are encouraged to visit the actual websites to see for yourself, but I have created a short list for each candidate based on their respective web pages.

The link on Edward's site is entitled "Leading the Fight against Global Warming and Our Addiction to Foreign Oil."

The link on Obama's site is entitled "Meeting Energy Needs."

Again, notice the stress in each candidates' use of terms.

A shortened version of Edwards' position is below. There is much more at the website:

Achieving Energy Independence & Stopping Global Warming Through A New Energy Economy
http://www.johnedwards.com/about/issues/energy/new-energy-economy/



Halting Global Warming by Capping Carbon Emissions

• Cap and Reduce Global Warming Pollution


• Use Science to Set the Caps


• Make Polluters Pay





• Lead the World toward a New Global Climate Change Treaty


• Make Our Own Commitments to Restore Our Moral Leadership


• Involve Developing Economies

Creating the New Energy Economy and 1 Million Jobs

• Create the New Energy Economy Fund



• Invest in Renewable Sources of Electricity




• Make 25 Percent of Our Energy Renewable


• Dedicate Resources to Renewable Energy


• Maximize the Potential of Cleaner, Safer Coal





• Transform the Auto Industry to Lead the World in Cars of the Future


• Reduce Oil Imports by 7.5 Million Barrels a Day by 2025


• Help U.S. Automakers Modernize


• Produce 65 Billion Gallons of Ethanol a Year by 2025


• Raise Fuel Economy Standards






• Open the Electricity Grids to Distributed and Renewable Generation


• Create Millions of Local Sources of Renewable Energy


• Encourage Distributed Generation


• Research the Next Generation of Small Scale Renewable Energy

Meet the Demand for More Electricity through Efficiency

• Meet New Demand for Electricity through Efficiency for the Next Decade



• Make Efficiency Profitable for Utilities



• Expand Smart Meters and Smart Grids to Use Energy More Wisely



• Invest in Weatherized Homes and More Efficient Buildings and Appliances



• Reduce the U.S. Government's Energy Use by 20 Percent and Make the White House Carbon Neutral.



• Create GreenCorps

Here is a shortened version of Obama's position:

Meeting America's Energy Needs
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/energy/


- Breaking the Fuel Efficiency Logjam

- Making a Deal With Detroit: Health for Hybrids

- Expanding the Use of E85 and Other Renewable Fuels

- Global Climate Change

- Increasing the Clean Use of Illinois Coal

Look at who Obama is working with on alternative fuels:

Senator Jim Talent (R-MO)
Senator Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA)
Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)
Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY)

Don't get me wrong, working with the other side can be good. But, according to this page, he is ONLY working with the other side and this is one issue where the other side is dead wrong. The only reason why these Republicans are even willing to do this is because it would benefit their particular states, but damage the rest of us and the environment compared to other alternatives.

As far as the details are concerned I really like Edwards plan, but you should look through and make your own conclusions.

After looking at these two issues, either candidate would be much better than any Republican that could possibly win the nomination. However, I largely prefer Edwards' plan and positions.

[papau]

1. Obama also supports the coal industry and the polluting coal to gas conversion

Illinois has rich folks that own soft coal mines in Southern Illinois - but this is a national issue - I do not understand why he threw that idea out in his Energy speech.

[MethuenProgressive]

2. Thanks for sharing what you wrote on DailyKos, jsamuel

...you should look through and make your own conclusions.

That part I agree with.

[Kolesar]

3. The "Global Warming" -> "Global Climate Change" semantics don't seem that profound to me

Yes, I read George Lakoff's text on how the pukes are trying to soften the message. I just don't see the profoundness of it all.

That being said, Obama needs to do his homework and sort out the coal rush. I don't think he has been diligent in that respect.

[jsamuel]

4. Your right, I should have just left that out of it. The plans speak for themselves.

The term "Climate Change" is now being used by scientists, so that point was moot anyway.

[NCarolinawoman]

5. Edwards got an overall environmental rating of D- when he was in the Senate.

I still remember his words: "I will lead the way against oil-drilling off the coast of North Carolina".... Only problem was, he ended up not EVEN SHOWING UP TO VOTE! Instead, he chose to go to a fund-raiser in Tennessee for his Presidential campaign.

I was always under the impression that John Edwards wished that the North Carolina environmental community would just go away. He has taught me to take anything he says on the environment with a grain of salt.

Regarding Obama....does he have any kind of track record?

[vireo]

7. Putting that rating in persepctive

But Betsy Loyless, LCV political director, insists that one shouldn't jump to the wrong conclusion about what appears to be a near-flunking grade: "Anything above 60 percent is considered a very solid rating. Keep in mind that the average score among senators in 2003 was 41; and if you look at records of senators from his region, the Southeast, Edwards is definitely one of the highest scorers."

Also, if you look at Edwards' voting record year by year, the picture is rosier -- he scored 78 in 1999, 100 in 2000, and 88 in 2001, before dropping to 59 in 2002 and then all the way down to 37 in 2003 -- a measly score largely attributable to the fact that he spent so much time on the presidential campaign trail that he missed half of the environment-related votes LCV tallied. (LCV counts missed votes as negatives, which also explains why Kerry's score has dropped from 96 to 92 in the last several months.)

<snip>

"His voting record for the most part is very favorable, but it's fair to say that environmental issues were not a priority for Edwards during his first several years in office," said a leading analyst at a prominent national environmental group who asked to remain unnamed. "For a while he was not even close to where we wanted him to be in terms of leading on certain issues, but we got him to come around."

LCV, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and other groups worked doggedly over the past few years to get to Edwards' major campaign contributors and convince them that the environment was an important issue for him to lead on. The contributors in turn took their case to Edwards, and, to his credit, he came around.

"We're a big fan of Edwards because of his turnaround," said the analyst. "The fact that he was so willing to listen to us, so adaptable and open to our concerns, spoke volumes about his ability to be a dynamic leader."

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/07/16/griscom-edwards/

The LCV was a major force in the 2004 campaign and I think Edwards has come to highly value the environmental community as a political ally.

[karynnj]

9. I don't think LCV was that much of a force in 2004 - Though Kerry wanted it to be

I think the environment could be a bigger issue in 2008 because of Al Gore's work.

That said none of the top three candidates have a real track record on the environment - unlike both Al Gore and John Kerry.

This was clearly written for the 2004 election. John Kerry was a clear favorite of the LCV - for good reason and they made Edwards look as good as possible. Kerry had a record going back to working to mitigate the problems of acid rain as a lt Governor in the early 1980s. Before that he helped organize annd spoke at the first Earth Day in 1970.

Edwards time in the Senate is his entire record on the environment - even ignoring the last year it is not on the level of Kerry or Leiberman (who is good on this).

Hillary will claim the executive orders Clinton issued in the waning months of the Presidency - the question is why were they not done earlier. This would have made it harder to overturn them. Energy use increased unabated. Clinton's Arkansas record was not good.

I know nothing that Obama has done on this. Both he and Clinton support the McCain/Leiberman bill insead of the better Boxer/Sanders (which Dodd supports) or Kerry/Snowe.

All 3 will have environmental planks - it makes no sense to compare Edwards' proposal to votes of the others. It would be better to wait and compare the proposals that will come.

[Cameron27]

8. deleted because he apparently had a change of heart

[benny05]

6. In fairness to Obama

and to readers here and DK, Jim Talent's name should be removed. Thank goodness the "show me" state elected Claire McGaskill (in which Edwards helped campaign for her candidacy) and sent Talent packing.

Regarding Edwards' environmental record, it's true his senate record did not get the highest marks, but the League of Conservation Voters have given his new Global Warming agenda many thumbs up.

[KingofNewOrleans]

10. Being from Illinois and judging by the lists of Senators

he works with on alternative fuels, the alternative fuel effort is heavily Corn ethanol related. A President Obama would have to broaden his alternative fuel efforts considerably.

[rosesaylavee]

11. Not sure who I am supporting yet

but know that this has to be one of THE issues for 2008. And We the People need to make that clear to our DEM candidates. If they don't have a fully flushed out plan to address this crisis, we need to ask them to present one to be taken seriously.

Gore has done us all a favor to bring this issue to the forefront.